campaign_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the read-only nature and a key behavioral detail ('Pending review never blocks the campaign'). However, with no annotations, it lacks information about authorization needs, return format, or potential side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that conveys purpose and key details, though it is somewhat long due to listing components. It is front-loaded with the main intent ('Read-only supervisor status').

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable enumeration of status components. However, it is incomplete without explaining the output format or pagination, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'runId' is not described in the input schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it represents or how to obtain it. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides 'Read-only supervisor status' and enumerates specific components like lane/target queue and dashboard review items. However, it does not explicitly state the verb-resource relationship (e.g., 'retrieve status'), which slightly reduces clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_dashboard' or 'run_campaign'. The description implies read-only use but does not specify when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.